On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:03:21 +0100 Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:18:12PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > Maxime, I'd appreciate your opinion about the topic below. > > > > > - int ret; > > > > > > - ret = drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(ddev->dev->of_node, 0, 0, > > > - &panel, &bridge); > > > - if (ret == -ENODEV) > > > + bridge = devm_drm_of_get_bridge(ddev->dev, ddev->dev->of_node, > > > 0, 0); > > > + if (PTR_ERR(bridge) == -ENODEV) > > > > This patch is technically OK in the sense that the code before and after > > would be equivalent. However if it were me I would not do this change. The > > reason is that both drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() and *_of_get_bridge() are > > problematic when introducing drm_bridge hotplug, which is the long-term > > goal I am working for, but *_of_get_bridge() is more problematic than > > drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(). > > > > These functions are still there and not deprecated because there is > > currently no better replacement (and drm_bridge hotplug is not yet > > supported because of this and other things still to be done). To have a > > replacement, the panel_bridge lifetime needs to be reworked first and > > that's not going to happen overnight. So, all in all, if this patch is not > > crucial to your series I'd consider dropping it. But if it is important I'm > > fine with applying it, it won't make a huge difference. > > Eh. I'm fine either way. I understand what you're saying, but this patch > doesn't introduce any *new* problem while it cleans up the driver, so I > guess we could merge it still. And further clean it up with what you > were suggesting later on. As you want. I will then keep the patch. If anyone has reasons why these patch should not be merged, speak now or forever hold your peace! ^^ Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
